My suggestion to AMD: Core count sells...
Why people are spending precious $ on slow CPUs such as Atom which can’t even do 720p? They are fast enough for typical word processing jobs. I bought a 1GHz C50 APU powered netbook and installed virtual machines on it. It served me well on a trip. I even did some development work on it. It is not very fast, but fast enough.
For my regular desktop, the CPU is a Phenom II X4 at 3.4GHz. The CPU is plenty fast for most tasks. To improve response time, the money is better spent for moving the system partition to a SSD, so OS and programs load fast…
If AMD can die shrink the Phenom II from 45nm to 32nm thus reducing power consumption along the way, I will be happy to buy a new one. A Phenom II 1090T at 80 watts would be very attractive.
When you have a new design coupled with a new process, the risk factors just multiply. Die shrinking should be one of the key strategies AMD adopt to react faster to market demand and reduce risk & cost.
Still, I will buy a 8 Core 3GHz processor just for the numbers. The bigger the better. 8 is greater than 4 and core count sells.
It is undeniable that the FX 8150 is indeed faster than i7 2600k on some benchmarks. There was some improvement. So it is not all negative.
From what I see, the AMD FX has a major memory bottleneck. Its memory write speed is substantially lower than Intel’s i7.
Intel copied the AMD64, multi-core and Direct Connect architecture from AMD and is laughing to the bank with all these AMD innovations. AMD engineers are very creative, but they have to work harder to create something much faster. Or they will end up jobless and have their names associated with a chip that disappoints the AMD support base and amuses the Intel camp.